this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
452 points (84.8% liked)
Memes
53562 readers
997 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Communism is both a mode of production, and a process. Socialist countries run by communist parties are properly communist in that they are building communism in the real world. This is why Marx states in The German Ideology that
The point isn't that socialist countries would be in that higher mode of production if they weren't under siege, or that they aren't sufficiently communist, but that they must build up state power to resist this siege, and as a consequence this state power sometimes commits excesses and mistakes.
So you agree with me. Great. Good conversation.
No?
Yes, you do. You have agreed to all the relevant points for my argument.
In my argument, I made it very clear that I don't care whether or not you want to see these nation as communist or not, just wanted to note that the arguments would start there.
But instead, my argument is that total harm cause is a flawed method because as you stated yourself and I hope you agree with yourself, the socialist state were forced into more state power to protect themselves. That paranoia and that power together cause much of the harm. Both wouldn't have existed if they weren't under siege, which again is what you claim. So looking at the harm of socialism/communism and comparing it with capitalism, acts like the harm of socialism wasn't partly caused by capitalism as well. So that comparison sucks and the argument fails.
And I am fairly certain, you agree with all of this, while you might dislike the words that I used.
I was arguing against this point in particular.
What do you disagree with? Were they under siege? Or not? Were the communist countries in their "pure" state or heavily influenced by outside forces trying to destroy it? Is something in it's "proper" state when forced into extremes?
They were absolutely proper, "purity" in constructing socialism is something liberals obsess over.
I see, so your issue is that i talk about "purity" to highlight the corrupting force of foreign threats. So you are upset that i don't want to place the blame for the harm entirely on the system communism/socialism, okay, if you want me to entirely blame communism for the harm that the states cause, I will. I will act like harm was purely motivated by communism and the logical consequence of communism.
My point isn't "socialism in real life is bad, but was only forced that way because of imperialists." My point is that I support socialism, including the development of state power required to protect socialism from sabateurs and imperialists, knowing that no implementation of state power has ever been free of sin. I acknowledge the necessity of protecting socialism, and the immense gains made by these systems for their working classes.
The fact of the matter is that imperialist countries do exist, and any socialist country must therefore develop means to protect itself. This is an internally driven necessity from solving the contradiction between imperialist and subjugated countries. It isn't something imposed from the outside, but the inside reacting to conditions it is in.
I got it. You want me to blame communism for the harm that it caused and the harm is the entirely the fault of communism. I heard you. That is what you argued for, for so long. I heard you.
No? It seems like you're deliberately refusing to see the point. Socialism is good and defending itself is necessary. You're taking a mechanistic approach.
Well if you don't want me to blame communism for the harm, then why argue with me about the harm as a proper and necessary part of communism?
Your point was that socialist states that protect themselves aren't "proper," and are posturing as though they are terror regimes.
It wasn't.
My point was when comparing capitalism and communism, that it is unfair to act like these systems operated independent from each other and no action of either of them were influenced by the other; That the communist harm in that comparison is purely communist and wholly part of and consequence of communism.
Because if the harm isn't wholly part of and consequence of communism, the harm is not pure communism, or as i phrased it, "proper" communism.
Edit: and if you wonder why i didn't talk about the influence of communism on capitalism instead, well can you really point at the harm of capitalism and tell me how communism influenced it?
This was your claim. The harm is a result of building communism, the internal necessity of protecting socialism is an internal reaction to opposed forces. You're erasing dialectical materialism. We do not live in a world without imperialism, or reactionary forces. This doesn't mean building up socialism wouldn't be nicer if imperialist countries didn't exist to sabotage them, but at the same time we must recognize that these problems are universal to building socialism and not merely the products of external circumstance. This is "proper" socialism, warts and all, that gradually resolves its contradictions and works towards the development of communism.